MyDD :: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:37:04 PM EST

Every 4 years in December, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, seems to morph into some sort of a zombie that turns on progressives... or maybe he's always that way. During the last Presidential cycle at this time, Robert Gibbs was the face and spokesperson for the front group that attacked Howard Dean in Iowa with one of the most dispicable TV ads of our times. This cycle, he's out trashing the credibility of Paul Krugman on behalf of Barack Obama.

But it's not right to pinpoint Gibbs as the disaster behind this attack on Krugman's credibility. The fault is with Obama. It's obvious that Obama feels comfortable attempting to trash the credibility of progressives like Krugman. It's even more disturbing when coupled with the admiration that Obama holds for Republicans in his post-partisan quest. But this is just plain stupid.

What's the point? "Krugman Then, Krugman Now." Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive.

Actually, it's worse. Couple it with the quote of Obama's above the PR that says: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama". It is plainly and simply an effort to call Paul Krugman a liar.

But it's also a telling quote of the way that Obama would govern as President-- by attacking those who are most outspoken in the being progressive.

If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade.

Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?

It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.

Tags: Barack Obama, Paul Krugman (all tags)

Permalink :: 208 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 0)

What next from you?

by iamready on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:39:01 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (1.00 / 0)

Don't ask.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 5)

Don't tell.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another bullshit attack from Jerome (1.66 / 3)

Since when does presenting someone's own words from several months ago on a topic and contrasting them with their current position constitute an attack. If Obama had made up quotes from Krugman, then sure you'd have a point. Simply asking for consistency from someone who has used his position as a journalist to launch a weekly critique is pretty light stuff.

If this is what constitutes an attack these days, then this will be the nicest, most pleasant primary ever. Not like someone questioning an opponents character, or questioning their qualifications to even be president. Oh, wait, that did just happen.

There is just no substance to this diary.

by commoncents on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course not - Obama never attacks- (2.00 / 1)

he "just sharpens the differences"-

Its only Hillary that ATTACKS!

righto?

wow, dont I sound like I too belong on Hardball?

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Krugman had same tone toward Obama all along (none / 0)

The part of the June 4, 2007 column that's not quoted that referenced in the Obama Factcheck
[New York Times, 6/4/07]

They just used the beginning.

"So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan. In fact, it would have been considered daring if it had been announced last year.

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn't quell my worries that Mr. Obama's dislike of "bitter and partisan" politics makes him too cautious. But at least he's come out with a plan.

Senator Clinton, we're waiting to hear from you."

These are the exact same sentiments and characterizations he made in his recent columns about the plan, about Obama and his lack of partisanship making him too cautious Krugman hasn't changed his evaluation, the Fact Check just a baldly bad job of selective editing to misreperesnt Krugman's tone.

The Fact check is like those newspaper ads that quote movie critics......Vince Canby said "This movie is amazing" but the real quote was truncated. It was "This movie is amazing...amazingly bad"

And so was the Fact Check. Jerome is right,

by debcoop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was SHOCkED when basically (2.00 / 3)

during day one of this campaign - I saw the phrase "sold out the lincoln bedroom" being quoted from team Obama and then saw that the words actually came from the comm dir for that camp - who was and is the one and lowly, Robert Gibbs.

What?! I screamed! I figured that piece of filth had followed the lovely Tricia's command and crawled back under his slmey rock - and he was now working as a spokeshack for the Peabody Coal Company or another group just as vile....but no.....he had been personally chosen by Axelrod and Obama himself to run the campaigns message. Well that really should of prepared us all for what was coming. Plus it immediately showed that the new kind of nice-nice campaigning that Obama promised was just gonna be hype. Which is all its been - hype.

How may synonyms for "liar" has Obama used to describe Hllary.

How many times has he used the totally bullshit Gerth charge that the clntons had a 20 year plan to put Hllary in the WH? {3 tmes btw] How many times dd the Clnton temm respond with the same list of barry quotes that showed he's been planning for the WH for many years himself?
Also 3. Now comes the Obama team on monday acting all shocked and just by coincidence - they had set up a brand new website to show how hillary attacks even 5 year olds? A steely false move - and an OBVIOUS SET UP - third time they had seen this same quote at Hillary Fact Check site? - and NOW they were shocked?!!! pleaseeee -and OF COURSE the refs in the media didnt and dont say BOO about the use of the Gerth lie - hell - the big media lives to help spread RW lies about thhe Clntons! All the village cares about is another chance to talk about how awful those Clntons are!! It was smart grant you - never said Gbbs wasnt smart- just that he's a vile reptile.

To me, the worst thing though in this entire campaign was obamas completely going over to the darkside and carryng water for the GOP and the meda during the NBC debate. His words about SS crisis have been much discussed - but it was his joining with Russert and demanding that the Clntons authorize an early release of the WH papers was AMAZING to even cynical old me. Did he not know that the GOP had been sending out releases demanding this for months and months? Did he not know that they and the MSM just want those files - so they can play gotch with Dems thru the entire election? Did he know that the media had never demanded the same from GOP administrations? Didnt he know that this release could hurt MANY Dems not just his foe Hillary? For years maybe? Of Course he new - they knew ...he and they - just didnt care!

Thats when I finally realized that to Team Obama - its ALL about whats good for Team Obama. Always. He, Gibbs and Axelrod have shown that they dont care how badly they scar, injure or wound our probable nominee. {I say probable- though looking at what happens after SC tells me its way more than that - just to be nice} They reinforce right wing and media talking points about the Clintons- day after day after day. {I suggest you all go visit my dear friend - the incomparable Daily Howler - to see how concerned and disappointed Bob is about this.] Ive never seen anything like it in the 30 years that Ive been around campaigns and I pray I never do again. I only hope that the damage that he and they do on their way out - doesnt cost us our chance to win back our Government.

Those three Obama, Axelrod and Gibbs - might not care what happens after they dont get the nod, but millions of other Dems like me - sure as hell do.

And also -
KRUGMAN IS THE LEFTY-PROG-DEM COLUMNIST HERO. There is no other. No one comes in even a close second. Thats why the insiders in the media itself despise and belittle the guy - cause he even calls them on their bullshit...which of course the sweethearts in the media never-ever do.

To see them imply that he is a liar would make me so mad at those people - but since I already am - now it just makes me more focused.

Though Im still close to 100% sure its gonna be Clinton in the end - I now say - ABO! Anybody!

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How can you possibly push Iraq war hawks, Jerome? (none / 0)

Your actions of attacking Obama (and other comments) indicate that you might prefer Hillary or Edwards. Given how they hawked the war (Edwards did more, and Hillary has Kyl-Lieberman under her belt now in addition to the IWR), how on earth could someone like you support these opportunistic war hawks?

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:15:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently it is reasonable to disagree with Obama (2.00 / 11)

from the right, but despicable to disagree with him from the left.

by jsamuel on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:41:16 PM EST

Re: Apparently it is reasonable to disagree with O (2.00 / 3)

BaReagan I'll bomb ya returns.

What do you expect from the man that admires Ronald Reagan and more or less threatend to invade Pakistan?

To his, or her, own I suppose.

by world dictator on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 5)

Excellent observations, Jerome.

Krugman is right. So they personally attack Krugman.

This has been going on for a long time and it is not pleasant to see:

it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle.

Can you imagine how much worse it will be in the general election?

Even his half-way plan will be forgotten.

by TomP on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:44:04 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 6)

That is what scares me. His present votes on contentious issues for example. I think Obama in the general election would run to the middle and that, in my opinion, would cripple democrat's chances at the WH and congress.

by jsamuel on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

the campaign released a statement from Chicago NOW director Lorna Brett, who devised the strategy on abortion issues that led Obama to vote present, saying "I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an Emily's list donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago NOW, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman's right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues.
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12 04/emilys-list-goes-after-obamas-leader ship-on-choice
Obama collaborated with the pro-choice activists for the best possible outcome and voted present. Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator.

by jb1125 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 1)

there are a lot of Illinios Dems in the Senate at that time who dont agree with her or you on this - including the present head of Chicago NOW and NARAL

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:53:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 1)

Compel people with a legal requirement to make them buy private insurance? In a 'for-profit' marketplace? This isn't a problematic general election position?

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:45:25 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 9)

2 points here. Edwards and Clinton offer public plans that everyone can buy into, while Obama does not. So they are compelled to buy into either a public plan or one offered by a highly regulated private insurer, and if they are too poor to afford the insurance, they get it free. Under Obama's plan, you can only sign up for the public plan if you are otherwise uninsured.

The 2nd point is that the Obama plan actually incentivizes healthy people to avoid buying insurance. After all, if an insurance company can't turn you away due to pre-existing conditions, why pay into the system until you actually have one?

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because of that fundamental flaw, a possibility (2.00 / 7)

arises that the plan always was window dressing. It's not meant ever to be adopted.

Obama needed a plan because Edwards had one. He figured Clinton would not go universal , so he triangulated. Clinton then adopted a plan similar in some ways to Edwards' plan. Obama was stuck, so he played the mandates as a right wing critique.

Krugman saw just that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinio n/07krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/ Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnist s/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that "my plan begins by covering every American," it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan's weakness, he's attacking his Democratic opponents from the right -- and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econom istsview/2007/11/paul-krugman-ma.html

I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care -- that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Thus Krugman must be discreditted. So, the personal attacks.

by TomP on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 1)

Public plans? Then what is Cohn talking about?:

In all of these cases, however, the only way to make sure these people get insured is to compel them to do so--in other words, to make it a legal requirement. That's a relatively simple matter if you have a single-payer, government-run system; you just enroll everybody at birth. (That's one more reason why folks like me continue to talk up this option, even though none of the leading candidates have taken to it.) But if you want to provide universal coverage mainly through private insurance--which seems to be where we're heading at the moment--then you have to make people buy it.
Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic 7 Dec 07

This 'mandate' of private insurance is what really bothers me.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 5)

Over 80% of Americans currently have insurance and are happy with what they have. Clinton tried to move them to a more public system in 1994 and public opinion turned strongly against her. So the rationale is that we must preserve the mainly private insurance system to maintain public support.

The Clinton and Edwards plans (and possibly the others, I have not read them) set up a public plan that competes with private plans on the individual and employer level (most Americans are insured through their employer). Since most public plans (Medicare, the VA system) have much lower overhead and provide better care than most private plans the theory is that a broad-based public plan will be cheaper and better and will out-compete the private plans.

Obama's public plan is not available through most employers, so for the most part it would not compete with private plans.

by souvarine on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

So the insurance industry is just as motivated to oppose these public plans as they would single-payer? When has the private sector idly permitted such potentially deadly competition? If you are going to wrestle the insurance companies to the mat why not go the whole way? So we are going to have this public and private system side-by-side with a bureaucracy over the top of the whole thing 'mandating' insurance, applying fines and garnishing wages? What did Rove say? Go ahead, send us that one. I dare you.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

Yes, the insurance companies will oppose any Democratic health care reform. Everyone realizes that, even Obama. The point is not to alienate the public, which is why no one is proposing taking away the private insurance that most people are happy with, and which single payer would eliminate.

Again, since the vast majority of Americans already have health insurance the mandates would affect a small portion of the population. Rove is welcome to THOSE numbers.

by souvarine on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

OK, so in the interest of not alienating the public why impose a 'mandate' which from all accounts will have a marginal impact on the uptake of the proposal and may be a sticking point with some voters? Ideological or political?

These all seem like half-measures to me, compared to single-payer. Why get all cracked up about the mandate?

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:37:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 2)

You impose a mandate for two reasons:

1. a third of the uninsured, roughly 15 million people, is not marginal. A mandate closes that gap to marginal, inducements don't.

2. to remove perverse incentives from the system. Under Obama's plan a rational, healthy person has a disincentive to purchase insurance.

by souvarine on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:44:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

I understand the theory, by now, I just don't get the politics. Why bet the farm on this? Why not get the foot in the door with a non-mandated proposal and then do the best possible with whatever Congress we get in November? Sounds to me like we are giving the Republican nominee a stick to beat us with otherwise. We can win this one if we don't get to didactic and realise the Republicans worst nightmares in our own stump rhetoric. Make 'em work for it, I say. Once we get a super-majority, well, that's a different story. Nationalise the health insurance industry if we can get away with it, or whatever.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:21:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

Because bad policy is bad politics, too. Look at it this way, Republicans are going to attack any plan that expands government involvement in the health care sector. And the perverse incentive aspect of Obama's plan will give them just as big of a stick (especially insurance companies) to fight with.

By the way, I don't want to "nationalise" health care in America. We can do better than the Canadian or British models of health care.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

Shaun:

That's the political flaw in Obama's failure to include mandates.

Yes, the insurance companies are going to kick and scream about many of the proposals (like not allowing them to deny coverage). But, 47 million new customers is a pretty juicy carrot. Just like it is a carrot to the private insurers to drop their pants every year to get a slice of the Federal Employees Heath Benefits customer base -- that Clinton's plan makes available to every one. The competition among private insurers to be an approved option is intense now...and will be even more intense. Now, pit that private insurance pool against a public Medicare option and let the market sort things out.

If, in the battle, Clinton can only get Congressional approval for the Federal Employees Benefits private insurer menu for everyone and has to jettison the public-payer as a big compromise, she ends up right where Obama is starting. What's his bargaining chip?

You don't pass grand sweeping reform legislation without bargaining something away so both sides can claim a win.

by hwc on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:27:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 0)

The problem with the Clinton plan was that it forced people into gatekeeper HMO's under a "Mommy knows best" theory. People strongly opposed the loss of their choice of physician, not the public nature of the plan.

Clinton draws the wrong lesson from the defeat of her plan because she can't accept that Mommy doesn't know best.

by antiHyde on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 4)

You may not have noticed but since 1994 most plans have become HMOs, and they have a whole mess of unregulated "utilization review" gatekeepers. Clinton anticipated what was going to happen and tried to head it off with some regulation.

by souvarine on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

Yes, there are many HMO's. And everyone who actually gets sick hates them.

by antiHyde on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

That is false. 30 seconds on Google will take you to the current Federal Employees Health Benefits menu. There is every kind of insurance product from HMO, to traditional insurance with various levels of deductables to choose from. The foundation of Clinton's American Health Choices Plan is making this exact menu of insurance options available to any company or individual who wishes to purchase insurance. The same insurance Congressmen have now.

by hwc on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

That is not false. What she is proposing now is irrelevant to what she proposed then. At least that's what the Edwards haters tell us.

by antiHyde on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Before you attack do some research (none / 0)

Edwards and Clinton would allow people to buy into a public plan like Medicare. The idea is that the public plan is cheaper and better because ther is no profit...just like Medicare.

And that this will propel people to choose the public plan....therby growing the public plan (a single payer plan within this system.. You may not know it but Medicare does have premiums....they are just small, reasonalble sums)
A growing public plan would challenge the private insurance companies and shrink their share.

For those who don't initially pick a plan they would be enrolled into the public one when they encounter certain situations....a hospital emergency room. Thereby also growing the public sphere.

by debcoop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Before you attack do some research (none / 0)

Then what is Cohn talking about? He made a pretty in-depth case for 'mandates' without going in to the public sector coverage. This public option strikes me as an invitation to the insurance industry to go to the mat against these proposals.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Before you attack do some research (none / 0)

The lesson here: Don't believe everything you read in the media (even the so-called liberal media). Remember, most journalists are lazy and don't bother to really understand policy positions of the candidates. Unless of course, those in the media aren't actually journalists and are instead respected academics whose job is to examine such things (e.g. Paul Krugman).

by adamterando on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 0)

looks like you found a point and a bone and arent moving -

why do i even try?

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:55:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, that would never fly (none / 0)

I mean, mandatory health insurance today, then what--mandatory auto, liability and retirement insurance? Never gonna happen!

by kovie on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 2)

Oh no, oh no, Obama dares to be critical of our sacred left-leaning economist!! Off with his head!

Give me a break. Krugman's piece was directed at Obama's character as much as policy. He basically invited this kind response.

by DPW on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:46:23 PM EST

Yes, it's the victim's fault. (2.00 / 5)

This is complete and utter bullshit:

He basically invited this kind response

You can rationalize any attack as "he had it coming, because he dared to question Obama on issues."

Krugman critized Obama's attacks on universal health care. So you thijnk the Obama camapign shoudl call him a liar and go after him personally instead of defedning their plan.

As for "sacred left-leaning columnist," well you sound almost Republican. Left-leaning is good in the Democratic Party. We want universal health care.

Armstrong is correct.

by TomP on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault.? (1.00 / 0)

"So you thijnk the Obama camapign shoudl call him a liar and go after him personally instead of defedning their plan."

Could you calm down. No one called him a liar. If contrasting your words today with your words a few months ago leaves people with the impression that you are a liar, then the problem isn't with the person who pointed out the difference. The problem lies with the inconsistent Mr. Krugman.

Krugman is hardly some poor defenseless victim. He is a writer for one of the most read newspapers in this country.

by commoncents on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault.? (none / 0)

look up thread. The Obama folks engaged in very selective editing.

by debcoop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:01:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault. (2.00 / 1)

First of all, he didn't call Krugman a liar, and he has defended his plan. In fact, Krugman's most recent piece is a response to Obama's defense of the plan.

Krugman did however lace some of his Obama-related articles with personal jabs (e.g. "played for a sucker"). So, it's fair to say that Krugman wasn't just interested in a policy debate. Also note that this whole thing began with Clinton at the Nevada debate when she argued Obama's health care plan reflected his lack of boldness, integrity, and concern for Americans. This was elevated to a personal level from the beginning. Given that atmosphere, it's hard to argue that Krugman enjoys some sacred, protected status. Krugman didn't pull any punches, why should Obama? Certainly, there's nothing particularly vicious in reminding Krugman that he once viewed Obama's plan more favorably--e.g., as "passing a basic test of courage" and as being "tough" despite his present characterization of Obama's plan as "cautious."

And, as far as me sounding "almost" like a republican . . . whatever. I reject the left/right dichotomy, so I don't really have an intelligible way of placing economists or myself on such a one-dimensional continuum. I just used the term here to to reflect the notion that Krugman is apparently beyond criticism simply because his political views lean in our direction. He's a fucking academic and owes any credibility he has to the ability of his work to survive scrutiny. To pretend outrage just because his claims are criticized by a candidate is plain stupid.

I also used the term "left-leaning" because much of Krugman's criticism of Obama lately is due to Obama's use of "right-wing talking points." Frankly, I hate when this little tactic is used to chill debate about something. It's as if you have to follow certainly rhetorical rules or you're "giving aid to the enemy," as Krugman claimed. I think that's a load of anti-intellectual bullshit.

by DPW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:05:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

look up thread to see the selective editing (none / 0)

the Obama Fact Check did with Krugman's June 6th 2007 article they quote to prove theri point.

by debcoop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 0)

obama has done nothing compared to the work krugman has.

but you insult him.

there the new kind of politics folks!

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:57:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe I'm just being picky... (1.33 / 3)

Every 4 years in December, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, seems to morph into some sort of a zombie that turns on progressives...

You only gave examples for 2008 and 2004. That isn't every December.

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama"

Wouldn't it be... 'with the truth." -Barack Obama' ?

Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman?

'Is Obama just plain...'

Sorry, but the other day you said you blog about what you want to blog about... I figured you'd want to blog about something with good grammar.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:51:36 PM EST

Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (2.00 / 5)

That will win people over!

by jsamuel on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.33 / 3)

I took him at his word. I figured he didn't imagine himself blogging with bad grammar so I thought I'd lend him a hand on the few things that stood out to me.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.33 / 3)

You're a really immature prick.

by FilbertSF on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.50 / 2)

Hey! While you're here, maybe you can tell me why you troll rated somebody for saying "More Dems in congress!" ?

Abusing the troll rating system? I could say the same to you buddy.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.50 / 2)

So sue me. Report me. What are you going to do about it? Whine?

Here, have some cheese.

by FilbertSF on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.66 / 3)

It's an honest question! You troll rated a guy, who thought it would be good to have more dems in congress. Seems rather suspicious to me.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer. (1.50 / 2)

Then shut up about it and report me. I wait with baited breath. Come on! Don't be an Obama. Put some muscle behind all that hot rhetoric.

by FilbertSF on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I bet in person you (2.00 / 1)

would piss your pants if you met me or him.

Big e-courage. I disagree with him regarding his criticism of Jerome, but your comments are ridiculous.

So act all tough on the internet. It impresses no one.

"Have some cheese." What are you in? Some bad movie? The dialogue you write for your comments is pathetically bad.

by TomP on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

"That isn't every December."

I meant to say "That isn't December every four years." Exclaiming that I thought you'd need more than two examples to make the case that he turns on progressives every four years.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 2)

Do not play the grammarian if you have not mastered standard English.

by truthteller2007 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Foul (2.00 / 1)

I just noticed that you have gone through an entire diary and troll-rated every comment by an Obama supporter, irrespective of content, cordiality or merit. That is foul. If it is not undone in the next few hours I am definitely going to make a formal complaint about you.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:01:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Foul (1.00 / 2)

Bring it on, pussy.

by truthteller2007 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 4)

What you said barely makes sense.

He said every " 4 years in december " didn't he ?

The last time I checked there is only 1 month of december in a year. So he obviously cannot give more than two examples between 04 and 08.

Stop being a wise ass and address the issues he raised . Stay away from the grammer thing , its petty.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

He said every four years in december. I think you need more than two examples to say every four years. What about 2000? 1996? Twice in a row? Saying every four years with only two examples sounds weak and premature.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

That's the best you can do?

by who threw da cat on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When Gibbs was forced out of the Kerry campaign (none / 0)

He was the communications person who represented that awful 527 that attacked Howard Dean in the run up to the Iowa caucuses.

I supported Kerry, admred Dean and hated those ads. Theywere dishonorable.

And Obama hiring Robert Gibbs was one thing that set off my "I don't like this " antennae.

I googled this below

"Then there's the attack ad, paid for by Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values:

Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs--who, until recently, worked on John Kerry's campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt's presidential campaign.

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archi ves/009169.html

by debcoop on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:17:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 9)

No, you're just being a dick... you obviously aspire to much, but I'd just as soon shoot it from the hip and not worry about annoying the most anal of the readers.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

I'd just as soon shoot it from the hip

Shoot what from the hip?

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 2)

Quit being juvenile.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

I'm assuming it's a figure of speech, I haven't heard it before. Don't really get it. That's what happens with a lot of figures of speeches that you haven't heard before.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

Too young to have seen any Westerns?

by souvarine on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:34:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

Sounds like good advice.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

" You only gave examples for 2008 and 2004. That isn't every December. "

- Perhaps because he said "Every 4 years in December ", just like you block quoted.

lol.

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama"

- he doesn't seem to be doing that , is he . His healthcare plan is not universal , so why did he put up ads saying it is and when called on it refused to take it down.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (1.00 / 0)

You should check. I corrected myself. I meant to say that doesn't constitute as every four years. Two examples? Please. Every four years should be at least 3 out of 5 or 6 examples.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pot, meet kettle: part two (2.00 / 1)

This is really getting old, Jeremiah. You're not really one to talk.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:32:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh the ol grammar insult... (none / 0)

nice.

what a dork.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

He didn't say every December, he said

Every 4 years in December, that would be 2004 and then lookie, another four years and it's December 2008.

If you are going to be "picky" at least get it right.

And typos happen.

by Ellinorianne on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm just being picky... (2.00 / 1)

Oh, you corrected yourself. Maybe you should give others the benefit of the doubt if you are going to nitpick.

by Ellinorianne on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Another hit piece from Jerome Armstrong. (1.66 / 3)

by rapcetera on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:55:50 PM EST

Re: Another hit piece from Jerome Armstrong. (2.00 / 6)

Actually, it was about Obama's hit piece on Krugamn, but I guess you missed that part...

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean... (2.00 / 2)

by Obama "hit piece" that it's just the accurate representation of Krugman's stunning change of tone and manufactured "outrage" in his series of hit pieces, right?

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean... (2.00 / 3)

Yea, it's this type of attack on Krugman by supporters of Obama like yourself that just makes me shake my head, sadly.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How can you possibly deny... (2.00 / 2)

... the obvious fact that Krugman has suddenly changed his rhetoric on this?

All of a sudden Krugman has realized that Obama doesn't adhere to progressive political correctness? Gasp! Who knew?

C'mon, man. Why is Krugman so upset about this, all of a sudden?

Because one time Obama said the word "crisis" in reference to SS, despite the fact that he'd repeatedly said the opposite? So now Obama's a right wing sell because he used the wrong word?

It doesn't add up.

You'd think that people who were interested in policy would care more about the policy than the rhetoric.

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right... (none / 0)

Because policy certainly proved to be wiser than personality on Iraq and Iran...

by kovie on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah - krugmans just bought and paid for (2.00 / 0)

but wait - he doesnt take money from lobbyists either-

so doesnt that also make him, by definition, pure?

----

hey - its just as logical as their claim...

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 4)

Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen if he gets the nomination. He, not Hillary Clinton, will drag Democrats down in Congress and at the state and local levels.

Just wait until the GOP attack machine gets started on him. Hillary Clinton may not be the best choice, but she's a lot better than Obama. Edwards would be a lot better than Obama.

You got to stand for something, and Obama stands
for....almost nothing.

by mikelow1885 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:00:05 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 7)

He seems to stand for himself and his 'movement' about him pretty well, I think you have to give him that much.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

but apparently only certain types of democrats are allowed in his "movement". I shudder to imagine the kind of movement Obama would lead when people like Paul Krugman aren't even invited to join.

by world dictator on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ABO (none / 0)

ANYBODY
BUT
OBAMA!

Who's with me?

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 2)

Really Jerome, this is getting ridiculous. I'm not supporting Obama in the primary so I have no axe to grind here, but I really don't see anything wrong with pointing out what a columnist wrote previously to what they wrote now and saying there are inconsistencies there.

And just because Krugman has been out there as the "lonely man in the wilderness" of the Bush presidency taking him to task doesn't mean he is right all the time. Unfortunately because of the way you have gone after Obama consistently, I am tending to take what you have to say about him less seriously. Perhaps that's unfortunate since you have brought up some good points from time to time but with most of it, it comes across as too much of a personal vendetta against him.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:01:31 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 6)

Except it's selectively quoting Krugman to imply that he's being inconsistent.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 1)

exactly - it was sooo deceptive.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 2)

Really. Jerome's personal crusade against Obama really damages both his own credibility and the credibility of MyDD.

If Obama's ever does do something worthy of hatred akin to Jerome's, no one will listen. Boy who cried wolf, and all that jazz.

by Kal on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the scary part of (2.00 / 3)

a few Obama supporters. For these few, any criticism of Obama on isuses is defined as "hatred" or "hating on him."
All critics must be personally attacked.

The cult of personality he promotes, and these few adopt, is contrary to fundamental egalitarian values.

I see him as a moderate. In a time that requires deep, fundamental change, his policies simply won't do.

by TomP on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the scary part of (2.00 / 2)

Could you please give the internet pop psychology BS a rest. The constant whining about what is wrong with Obama supporters is annoying and incredibly condescending.

by commoncents on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ABO! (2.00 / 3)

This is a wise comment from Ezra Kleins blog today - where Klein was making exact same point as Jerome is here by he way.

This, and Obama's apparent surge generally, is very, very troubling. It does not bode well for us at all, as Obama is the candidate most likely to give away an election that is ours to lose.

Democrats need to get really serious about this race really fast. People are always complaining about how "early" it is, but we're barely a month out from a handful of actual votes that will probably decide who carries the Democratic banner in 2008. There is very good reason to wonder whether Obama is ready for prime time, but we're on the verge of putting him there without even considering this question.

If Obama wasn't in the race, I think we'd see a more serious campaign. Clinton and Edwards have reasonably distinct ideological perspectives, and each would bring different electoral strengths to the ticket. It would be nice to have a forceful but rational debate over the future of the party and the different paths they represent.

But Obama is a sideshow, a candidate whose celebrity is his only rationale. It is very fitting that Oprah is campaigning for him. Obama's supporters represent a disturbing cult of personality that I do not see anywhere else (except Ron Paul). They seem to think that his very existence is somehow miraculous and that his election would be "transformative" in some ineffable, metaphysical way. Andy Sullivan's argument, essentially, which should really tell you something.

Posted by: Jason C.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABO! (2.00 / 1)

Really, all these comments about Obama's supports being naive, silly, ignorant about policy, and members of a cult are offensive.

by Kal on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (1.66 / 3)

I agree here...It's impossible to take jerome seriously on any points he makes about Obama.

It is so clear that he has a personal beef against him ad anyone that would take his opinion of Obama as bias is just crazy.

by Prodigy on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

attack (none / 0)

attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack

and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on...

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 2)

Oh, no! Obama defends his policy solutions! That means we're sure to lose in November!

Run for the hills!

Unlike Jerome, I have no problem with our officials and candidates calling out media folks, whether they're on the left or the right.

by Kal on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:01:41 PM EST

calling out media folks! (none / 0)

You are kidding!? Do you really know so little?

Team Obama is on Hardball every night give Matthews a handjob and they did even more for russert and Co - they are the darlings of the bought and paid for 500 of the media village -

but THE ONE INDEPENDENT VOICE in the entire MSM -

They ATTACK

and you -

think that is just so swell.

We will count you down amongst the completely CLUELESS!

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: calling out media folks! (none / 0)

If somebody gets their policy positions wrong, or attacks them, I expect them to attack right back.

Unlike some people here, I don't want a repeat of 2004 where our nominee is too scared to defend himself.

Should Obama be attacking Chris Matthews et al if they give him positive coverage? If you think they should, it is you who is clueless.

by Kal on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: calling out media folks! (none / 0)

go start reading www.dailyhowler.com

educate yourself on this.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 0)

Gibbs doesn't do Fact Check and has nothing to do with this response. It's done by the research department.

by jb1125 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:10:52 PM EST

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 3)

And as the communications director he doesn't get the opportunity to look these over before they go out? This isn't your everyday 'factcheck' put out by the research dept. At the very least on this one specifically, which attacks a person in the media, it'd be a very disorganized campaign which didn't run this attack with the approval of the communications director, and even the candidate himself.

I wouldn't be surprised, given Obama's thin-skin, to learn that the idea originated with Obama being pissed at reading it in the clips, and telling Gibbs to respond with a counter-attack.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (2.00 / 1)

I don't know how the research and communications departments coordinate.

I would speculate the research director was told to respond to Krugman. They already have a fact check defending his plan and so the purpose of the response was to clarify what Krugman was criticizing. http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 7/11/30/post_2.php

It was important to illustrate that Krugman's tone towards Obama's plan has changed. This helps emphasize that what Krugman is most upset about is the change in rhetoric not the actual plan.

(I responded accidentally to the full thread below)

by jb1125 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

get a grip hoss. an atack on the leading left columnist of the frigging nytimes did not go out without the approval of the lowly Gibbs.

Offend the Media - Vote for Hillary!

by Seymour Glass on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:26:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility (none / 0)

As has been noted in several comments above, there was no frigging 'attack'.

In the same way, I don't regard Krugman's recent columns as 'attacks'. He published significant, well-earned criticism of Obama's policy and tactics.

I wish Obama had responded, in his own words, to those criticisms. As far as I can tell, he hasn't mounted a specific defense.

But his Fact Check page IS a general form of defense--not an attack.

by along on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:02:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]